Abortion Assasination Politics likely going to Supremes
juicy at melontraffickers.com
Tue Dec 10 11:45:29 PST 2019
> So when is APster coming out, which lets
> you trade lists of deserving people?
> Tuesday September 12 5:11 AM ET
> Abortion Web Site Verdict Appealed
> By WILLIAM McCALL, Associated Press Writer
> PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) - Anti-abortion activists are
> asking a federal appeals court to overturn a $109 million
> verdict by a jury that decided a Web site and posters listing
> the names of abortion doctors and clinics were threats that
> went beyond free speech.
> The case is widely seen as a test of a Supreme Court ruling that
defined a threat as
> explicit language likely to cause imminent lawless action - and a
measure of how
> far anti-abortion activists can go in harrying doctors and clinics.
> Oral arguments in the appeal are scheduled Tuesday before a panel of
the 9th U.S.
> Circuit Court of Appeals.
> At issue is a Web site called The Nuremberg Files that listed
hundreds of abortion
> doctors accused of committing crimes against humanity and invited
> send in doctors addresses, license plate numbers and even the names
> Last year, the dozen anti-abortion activists argued the posters and
Web site were
> free speech protected under the First Amendment. Critics called it a
> The jury was told by U.S. District Judge Robert Jones to consider the
> violence in the anti-abortion movement, including three doctors
killed after their
> names appeared on the lists.
> One was Dr. Barnett Slepian, who was gunned down by a sniper in
October 1998 at
> his home near Buffalo, N.Y. Slepians name was crossed out on The
> Files Web site later that day.
> In 1995, Planned Parenthood and four doctors sued the anti-abortion
> federal racketeering statutes and the 1994 Freedom of Access to
> Act, which makes it illegal to incite violence against abortion
doctors and their
> Jones told the jury the Wanted-style posters and Web site were not
free speech if
> a reasonable person could perceive them as threats.
> But a number of legal experts have criticized the February 1999 jury
> those instructions, saying a threat must be explicit.
> If youre looking for a case likely to go to the Supreme Court, this
is one, said Lee
> Tornquist, a law professor who specializes in the First Amendment at
> University in Salem, Ore.
> Others consider the jury decision sound.
> Margie Kelly, spokeswoman for the Center for Reproductive Law and
> New York, said Jones correctly told the jury to weigh any threat in
> This is a case that is built on history, Kelly said. You have had
years of arson,
> shootings, death threats. How can that context be considered anything
but a threat?
> The Georgia computer programmer who ran the Nuremberg Files was not a
> defendant in the lawsuit. After the verdict, his Internet provider
pulled the plug on
> the site.
> Among the anti-abortion activists appealing the ruling is Michael
Bray of Bowie,
> Md., author of a book that justifies killing doctors to stop
abortions. Bray served
> time in federal prison from 1985 to 1989 for his role in arson
attacks and bombings
> of seven clinics.
More information about the cypherpunks-legacy